Sunday, August 17, 2008

There has, of late, been a glut of left leaning writers and speakers condemning the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war as an immoral, if not illegal, act. Many have even gone so far as to demand that articles of impeachment be initiated against him for "war crimes" for attacking Iraq under what they claim were "false pretenses." Not the least of the president's critics is Senator Barack Obama, the presidential nominee for the democratic party. Senator Obama claims that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Fortunately for him, Illinois state legislatures don't actually get to vote on such matters and therefore he didn't actually have to take his position on record. If he had, one wonders if he would have opposed it the same as he did the recent FISA bill. Which is to say he opposed it right up until the point that he voted in favor of it. His recent rhetoric on Iraq suggests he will say whatever you want him to say.The war in Iraq was initiated for several reasons. Failure to abide by the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, in and of itself, was a valid justification to go in and finish off the regime of Saddam Hussein, let alone the matter of 17 violations of United Nation mandates. After all, President Clinton wasn't flinging cruise missiles into Iraq late in his administration for no reason now was he? However the opponents of the Iraq war have always focused on President Bush's belief that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, as well as an intent to use them. This is the reason most people believe the U.S. attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq in a preemptive war, to prevent any possibility of future Iraqi aggression.You can argue whether or not the basis for the president's decision was justified. He had many sources of information claiming that Hussein possessed these weapons, even though the treaty that he signed at the end of the first gulf war forbade him to have them. Not only did our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believe that it was a "slam dunk" (their actual words) that he had them, but also the intelligence agencies from several other countries corroborated this information. These included countries such as France and Russia who opposed the idea of the United States taking military action. This combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein had previously used chemical weapons against his own citizens in 1988 rightly convinced President Bush that in a post 9/11 world, military action was required.It is true that no "working" weapons of mass destruction were found. It is also true that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium, the kind used to make such weapons, were found. So arguments can be made to justify or criticize the president's actions. Yet the question of the morality of a preemptive war still haunts many of our countrymen. There is a certainty among many that it is never right for the United States to strike first. However, in a world confronted with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this is a matter of judgement...a very important attribute for a president. Consider these words from Barack Obama:

"When people talk about experience, what they really want to know is: does he have good judgment? You would hope that if someone has more experience it gives them better judgment. But everyone knows many 50-, 60-, and 70-year olds who don't have good judgment because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. What we want to talk about is judgement, common sense, and how we get stuff done." 08/22/07

Ahh, judgement. It appears Mr. Obama has a lot of faith in his own judgement. But should we have faith in his judgement, or in the judgement of anyone who would question the current president's wisdom in his choice of action for a preemptive war? For as you shall see, such wisdom, fortitude and judgement will be required again, and soon. Allow me to introduce you to the "Doomsday Machine" known as the Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon. Or, as the Iranian's call it, "change you can believe in:

"WASHINGTON -- Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts. The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight. Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. (World Net daily)

You better read that paragraph over again to make sure you understand the ramifications of what it is saying. Many people often refer to the United States as a superpower that can bomb someone else into the "stone age." Well, you have just been told that the same can be done to us. Let that sink in.What is an electromagnetic pulse weapon? It is important that you understand this weapon and the implications of having such a weapon used against you. William R. Graham, chairman of the "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack" described electromagnetic pulse weapons thusly:

"A single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth. EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that 'shocked' - upset, damaged and destroyed - electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects." "The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation."

The purpose of an electromagnetic pulse attack is not to kill people, at least not immediately. The initial attack will wipe out electricity, fry electrical circuit boards and destroy communications apparatus over the target area. The higher the altitude of the detonation the greater will be the affected area. The cascading effects on our society would be dramatic to say the least. The financial system would instantly be ruined, making even the simplest of transactions impossible. Food water and fuel would become scarce. Why? Lack of electricity will mean a lack of refrigeration, which would leave food rotting in warehouses. The inability of water treatment facilities to sanitize and distribute water would threaten public health. The lack of electricity would likewise make it impossible to refuel vehicles as the fuel cannot be dispensed from gas stations without the electricity. Fuel unavailability would lead to vehicles being stranded when they run out of gas. This will result in severely limiting transportation capability, and the increasing chaos would result in a rapid breakdown of social order.

No one will know what has happened, and know one would be able to tell anyone if they did. Realistically there will be no one coming to anyone's aid. No government or civilian services will exist. This is a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. If this country is deprived of it's electricity it immediately will become function-less. Our extreme dependence on electricity and electronics has created an "Achilles Heel" that our enemies are now seeking to exploit. Once disabled by an electromagnetic pulse attack, it will take from months to years to repair the damage. What will become of us in the meantime? Will the world come to the aid of the United States, or will our enemies pounce on us while we are down? Imagine the chaos and lawlessness witnessed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Will we descend into a sub-civilization and become our own worst enemy? Do you really want to find out?The EMP threat is not a new one. The Soviet Union also had the capacity to deliver such a blow to the United States. However certain military and government facilities can be hardened and protected against the effects of an electromagnetic pulse attack. Therefore preserving the ability of the United States to retaliate with our own strategic nuclear forces. This was a deterrent to a nation state like the old Soviet Union as it is to most nation states. However this is not a deterrent to a rogue state like Iran which is governed by a lunatic who believes his messiah (The 12th Imam) will only return due to an apocalyptic event. Such a man can, and will, initiate the apocalyptic event himself. Nor is the threat of a catastrophic counter attack much of a deterrent to terrorist groups that have no state identity. Who are you going to attack? In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center it was quickly ascertained who was responsible, yet with the United States electrical systems shut down and most electronics fried, how will we even be able to accurately determine which terrorist group is the aggressor?This is a relatively inexpensive way to destroy us. The Iranian government may be trumpeting their success at detonating their Shahab 3 ballistic missiles by remote control, but a the missile itself need not be that sophisticated. A nuclear weapon detonated on a simple scud missile will produce the same results. And there is a glut of such missiles in the world. We also know that al-Qaeda has access to upwards of 80 ships from which such a missile could be launched. Considering Iran's relationships with not only al-Qaeda but also other terrorist groups such as their proxies Hezbollah, it becomes more imperative that they not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to develop them.I know some of you out there are thinking about our ABM (anti-ballistic missile) weapons. Won't they offer us some protection? It is true that we have successfully tested and deployed some of these weapons for exactly this reason. However, lets be honest here, these weapons are not necessarily that dependable. We have managed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles under test conditions where we knew when, and from where they were coming. In the event of a real attack the response time will be severely shortened as we will not know when, or from where the attack is coming. Therefore we will not know how effective these counter measures are until they are tested under the real world conditions of an attack. That is quite a risk to take, especially if there is an alternative.It is interesting to note that President Bush has made deploying an ABM system in Europe a major part of his foreign policy. His argument being the same as the justification for deploying such defenses in the United States, to protect against rogue states launching weapons of mass destruction. Just this week, Poland agreed to accept an anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory. Vladmir Putin, Prime Minister and de facto ruler of Russia, has strongly opposed deployment of such a system in eastern Europe and has threatened Poland with an attack in the event such a system is installed. All the while he has been providing "technical assistance" to the Iranians in developing their "peaceful" nuclear program. Coincidence? Considering the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, do we dare to contemplate the potential for a Moscow-Tehran alliance?Now ask yourself if a man can make the following statement and still consider himself qualified to be president of the United States:

"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Who would say such a thing? Why Mr. "Judgement" himself, Senator Barack Obama. As a United States Senator he is privileged to have all the information I have presented thus far, and yet he has the "audacity" to make such a foolish statement. Why? Because he is aware that MOST Americans do NOT know the extreme threat that Iran poses to our nation. As you can see, it is a far greater threat than Iraq ever presented. He is counting on the public's ignorance, and its impatience with the Iraq occupation, to drive public opinion away from the use of force to actively defend our nation. Unfortunately many, if not most, Americans seem to agree with him. There is an arrogance that comes with extended periods of safety that blinds us to the constant threat to survival that has always been part of the human experience. The most vulnerable society is the one that fails to perceive its own weaknesses. You would think that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center would have awakened us to this ever constant danger. But once again, we see ourselves turning towards distractions, that are far less important than our survival.But the question remains. What should we do about Iran? Should we use the military option and destroy Iran's nuclear program? Certainly a regime as dangerous as theirs that consistently threatens the annihilation of both the United States and Israel should not be allowed to ever get possession of such weapons. Israel rightly views a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat to them but, as we have seen, it is likewise an existential threat to us as well.There are those who would suggest that we should let Israel attack Iran, essentially letting them do the dirty work for us. This however is very foolish. For starters, Israel does not have the capacity to destroy all of Iran's military capacity and it is doubtful they can even seriously harm their nuclear assets. This is not the same situation as when they bombed Iraq's nuclear program in the 1980's. That target was concentrated in one location and was totally caught by surprise. Iran is a much more determined adversary who is more than aware of a potential attack.. Their nuclear assets are scattered in numerous places which would force Israel to divide its attack upon several targets and hope to be successful at all of them. A military improbability. Also, once attacked, Iran is going to strike back. Not only will they strike back at Israel, but they will also attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz and shut down the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf. Then the United States will have to get involved to reopen the passage. So Israel can only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a small factor, and in so doing, create a big international mess that the United States will have to clean up anyway.No. There is no way of getting around the obvious. The job must fall to the United States. We must strike in such a thorough way as to eliminate, not only all of the various sites Iran has dedicated to developing nuclear weapons, but also we must destroy all of their military capacity. This will not necessarily require an invasion, but it will require a prolonged air and naval campaign to render the regime in Tehran impotent. Only the United States has the military capacity to do this.But that returns us to the same moral dilemma we faced on the eve of the Iraq war. Is it moral for the United States to attack another country first? The threat is clearly present in the form of both the actions and words of the Iranians. Yet, in spite of all the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, many feel it would be a second immoral preemptive action.Does the United States have the right to attack another sovereign nation? ABSOLUTELY!! There is no doubt about the intent of the government in Iran. They have boasted of their desire to destroy the United States and Israel to the point where almost no one pays them any attention anymore. So much so that presidential hopeful Barack Obama feels comfortable belittling the threat they present as part of his campaign rhetoric. But now we all can see that they can carry out their threats in a manner equal to their bravado. As always, I am led to a passage in the Bible:

EZEKIEL 33:1-6 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Here we see that God holds those who know of an impending attack into account. The fate of the people rests in the hands of the watchman if he fails to warn the people. However, once warned, it is the people themselves who are accountable for their lives. Interesting...Our leaders, acting as our watchmen, have known of this threat for some time. Our blood has been on their hands. The electromagnetic pulse weapon is designed as a first strike weapon. If successful it may be the only strike required to destroy us. It would be completely immoral for our president to fail to protect us from this attack. In fact, it can be argued, that the president has no greater responsibility than that of protecting the country. But consider this: you who are reading this, and many others throughout our country, are now aware of this threat as well. Your blood may very well be falling into your own hands as you cast your vote in the next election. We must be sure we elect a man with the moral fortitude to act in our defense. When dealing with a weapon that can start and finish a war in one strike, survival depends on shooting first. Some people in our country are clamouring for a change. Iran and their terrorist proxies would love to give it to us. This is a danger every bit as serious as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. In fact it is more dangerous! We better be sure there is a man in the White House who can handle it, not one who belittles the situation.

"When a country doesn't recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, it cannot claim any national or international rights. Therefore, anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is morally justified in doing so, because he is doing no worse than what that country has accepted as its social system. It is improper to attack a free country, because it recognizes the individual rights of its citizens."

Who could have said such a thing? Why none other than the world famous and renowned atheist Ayn Rand. Though I am no fan of atheism, she was quite an interesting and very reasonable woman. Her Objectivist philosophy is thoroughly based on reason and self-interest, two things the political left in this country arrogantly thinks they have bestowed upon themselves. A nation that oppresses its own people and does not recognize the individual rights of its own citizens cannot itself claim a right of sovereignty now can it? On what would their claim be based? How can a nation which openly calls for the annihilation of other nations not expect that those nations might seek to act in their own defense and strike them down first? The truth is, such a nation can and should be destroyed BEFORE it causes harm to a free state. It is immoral to put free societies at risk just to placate a bully state for a few more moments of delusional safety. It is time to go about the business of acting in the interests of protecting the free world, whatever the short term consequences and inconveniences.Without a shadow of a doubt, Iran qualifies as a society that fails to recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, as also did Saddam Hussein's Iraq. So all of you who have worried your consciences over the moral ethicality of attacking an oppressive society need to get over it. Talk of impeaching President Bush for war crimes for the Iraq invasion is rendered childish and silly when seen in its proper perspective. In fact, he would be more entitled to an impeachment if he had failed to act! If the populations of oppressed countries can tolerate their own oppression, they are not going to do anything to prevent their country from attacking and oppressing others. They deserve the same as their government deserves. There are no innocent people in an oppressed country. Oppression is a cancer on civilization. You don't tolerate cancer, you remove it. The Iranian people wanted a change in the 1970's...and they got it. They got the Islamic Revolution and they have been living under the yolk of Islamic totalitarianism ever since. Their leaders are leading them straight toward a confrontation with us. They made their choice and have been antagonistic to the United States from the moment they took our embassy and held its members hostage. Let us act in our own interests and not concern ourselves with their fate anymore than they are concerning themselves with ours. I choose for them to be destroyed, and will not vote for a president who fails to perceive the seriousness of their apocalyptic agenda. If this sounds like an endorsement of John McCain...so be it.I'll conclude by quoting the President of the recently invaded country of Georgia, a free country that was improperly attacked. When asked what America could do to help his country, Misha Saakashvili replied: "Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?" Who else, indeed?A better question might be: Who will stand up for America when she has been neutralized by an electromagnetic pulse attack? Some people want change...this is one we must prevent! Its time to deliver to the Iranian government its final ultimatum...give up their nuclear program and openly allow international inspectors, or give up their lives. Each day we fail to act is another day closer to our own demise. To risk the death and destruction of our free society at the hands of an oppressive, Islamic Iran is an immoral act. Attack!